I was talking with a friend about Israel, and he did something uncharacteristic. He tried to shut down the debate. He did so using a few problematic arguments. Arguments I would like to take a look at before adding in my own thoughts on Israel and Palestine.

Tax Dollars and Speech

J made the point that since my tax dollars go towards supporting Israel’s violence towards the Palestinians, I couldn’t talk about “opposing violence”. This is a pretty easy argument to defeat. J opposes the Iraqi war, yet his tax dollars go towards its support. Would anyone say he ought to shut up about his opposition? Of course not. It is vital we speak our minds, especially when our tax dollars go towards a cause we deem unjust.

Privilege and Violence

J then pointed out that the Palestinians were under attack, and I was speaking from the position of “Extreme Privilege” in condemning their violence. Ironically, this is the exact same argument the Israeli government uses to justify its attacks on Palestinians! J is hardly living under threat, from missiles or bombs, Palestinians or Israelis. We share in this privilege, but it does not bind us to silence. If anything it compels us to educate ourselves and seek to impact the situation positively. Privilege is a blindfold, not a perpetual state of being. We must first realize we are blind, but then we must tear off the blindfold as best we can and see!

Knowledge and Speech

J Finally said he didn’t have time to educate me, and I ought to “go do some critical thinking”. This reminds me of a professor I had in college, who used to attack students whose viewpoints he disagreed with by lambasting them for “not having done the reading” (even when they had). It also reminds me of a student of my own. After establishing she had political viewpoints after all, I asked why she didn’t express them. She responded that she didn’t feel she knew enough to have a voice.

One must always have a voice. Knowledge is not a prerequisite for taking part in the discourse of society. It is a desirable thing of course. But too often knowledge is transformed into agreeable knowledge. That is, the right kind of knowledge according to a particular point of view. So I was told to read books that supported J’s viewpoint (no mention of those that opposed it).

Discussion as Democratic Vitality

Regardless of one’s viewpoints, it is essential to the health of Democratic discourse that we work to increase, not shut down, communication. The Israel Palestine problem is huge, and one we all have an interest in seeing solved peaceably and sustainably. We need to be finding ways to open channels of communication. Especially when it comes to this issue.

OK OK, Where do YOU Stand?

I support a single secular state. I don’t think two theocratic states prone to violence in close proximity is a recipe for success. I think Israel-Palestine’s promise is in becoming a force for peace and an advocate for the oppressed. I consider both the Israeli and Palestinian people to be a part of my heritage, and get excited thinking about the wonderful things they could accomplish together.

When it comes to guilt and responsibility, I find that both sides use violence, both sides kill the innocent, and both sides employ lies and propaganda to further their aims. Being the state carries with it a higher responsibility, and Israel needs to step up.

I cannot say whether or not I would be moved to commit acts of violence if I were in their shoes. What I can say is that as long as that violence continues it will make the situation ever worse, and consume the very blood of the innocent those acts of violence were meant to protect or avenge.